I read on a recent church bulletin: “Pastor ___ and his wife are presently attending the Robert Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership in the Los Angeles, California area. Pastor ___ has been asked by the Board of Home Missions to attend this.”

This is, of course, not the first time that I read or heard about this. It has been going on for some years. But I get annoyed every time again: Is this a stewardly use of money, and is this the direction the Home Missions Board wants to pursue? I understand that the Amway Corporation is supplying the funds for these trips, and so it does not cost the Home Mission Board anything. But that does not change the principle of the thing, nor does it in any way allay my misgivings. Fact is, knowing something of the business philosophy of Amway only increases my concern: must this same philosophy be applied to the church? Must we measure the church in terms of “success”? Must Madison Avenue business technique be applied to the church? Is the church a commercial enterprise? The questions Dr. Praamsma asks with respect to the “oligarchic structure” of the World Council of Churches can, mutatis mutandis, be asked here:

Should the churches be organized as a big business? Are permanent offices and ministrations apart from those of the local churches justifiable on the basis of Scripture? Shouldn’t national and international assemblies of the church be of short duration and bear a humble character? (p. 216 of The Church in the Twentieth Century)

We do well, too, to listen to what the Rev. Edwin Walhout wrote not long ago in The Banner: “The success or failure of the Word of God is not determined by earthly standards of judgment. Success or failure is measured by faithfulness to the Word of God, not by earthly measurements . . . A congregation likewise should not deceive itself that it is alive simply because it sets goals and meets them successfully, nor should it become discouraged by lack of earthly results.” We need to be reminded of that today, also in the CRC. Remember Sardis: “You have a name that you are living, but you are dead” (Rev. 3:1).

It seems quite clear to me that Schuller’s successful “jumbo” church concept goes contrary to the general tenor of Scripture. Consider only the following passages: Deut. 7:7; Isa. 42:1–4 – “We who are so impressed by power, must learn that Jesus turned to the helpless” (Daylight); the little stone of Daniel 2 versus the huge image; Micah 5:2; Zech. 4:6; Matt. 13:31–2; Luke 1:51–53 – “Yes, it’s a simple tune, the song of Hannah and the song of Mary. . . . You can hear this tune everywhere in the Bible, and all of us had better learn it -now or never. ‘He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree’” (Daylight); Luke 12:32; I Cor. 1:26-29; Rev. 3:8b.

And now I haven’t said anything yet about Schuller’s man-centered, power-of–positive-thinking version of the gospel, nor about the ever-present-smiling-image of the electronic church, nor of the unstewardly shrine called the crystal cathedral. Nor will I comment on some of the baneful results present in churches where “Schullerism” is applied. I simply cannot understand the Home Mission Board’s fascination for this kind of business. It does nothing to enhance their reputation in my eyes.